-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/19/2013 06:07 PM, York Sun wrote: > On 08/19/2013 03:04 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:20:25PM -0700, York Sun wrote: >>> On 08/19/2013 12:54 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:47:53PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 2013-08-19 at 16:14 +0800, >>>>> ying.zh...@freescale.com wrote: >>>>>> From: Ying Zhang <b40...@freescale.com> >>>>> >>>>> No. You added one line AFAICT. Preserve the original >>>>> author here. >>>> >>>> Indeed. >>>> >>> >>> Do we need Ying to send a new version? We can reset the author >>> to Joe when applying this patch. >>> >>>>>> SPL defines CONFIG_SPL_BUILD but this does not percolate >>>>>> to the autoconf.mk Makefile. As a result the build >>>>>> breaks when CONFIG_SPL_BUILD is used in the >>>>>> board-specific include header file. With this, there is a >>>>>> possibility of having a CONFIG option defined in the >>>>>> header file but not defined in the Makefile causing all >>>>>> kinds of build failure and problems. >>>>>> >>>>>> It also messes things for up, for example, when one >>>>>> might want to undefine options to keep the SPL small and >>>>>> doesn't want to be stuck with the CONFIG options used >>>>>> for U-boot. Lastly, this also avoids defining special >>>>>> CONFIG_SPL_ variables for cases where some options are >>>>>> required in U-boot but not in SPL. >>>>>> >>>>>> We add a spl-autoconf.mk rule that is generated for SPL >>>>>> with the CONFIG_SPL_BUILD flag and conditionally include >>>>>> it for SPL builds. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Joel A Fernandes <joelag...@ti.com> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ying Zhang <b40...@freescale.com> --- >>>>>> Change from v4: - No change. Change from v3: - No >>>>>> change. >>>>> >>>>> Surely there was *some* change or you wouldn't have >>>>> reposted... >>>> >>>> v4 was adding Joel's S-o-b line back to the changelog. >>>> >>> >>> >>> I tried to run MAKEALL for arm and powerpc. Powerpc all passed >>> but I am having errors for arm, before applying this patch. I >>> am using Linaro's gcc 4.8.2 for arm. Should I use a different >>> toolchain? I am not used to work on arm platforms. >> >> That's expected as the Linaro toolchain isn't good for all ARMs. >> I'll pass this through some testing locally as well. > > Any suggestion on cross toolchain for ARM. I want to extend my > MAKEALL coverage, but don't want to deal with too many varieties > of toolchains.
ELDK 5.2.x works for all ARM (and MIPS). - -- Tom -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSE2g7AAoJENk4IS6UOR1WMUIP/0adzkiNhsKBhjn39KNCpOSB mwlRxpPMlDzzlUPWJCcZ+sWuxqRw7tpdq309x6G4ojUU4mXdZGv5kcs22kEJoTze 48GxFJQG30AMk0smgoAS9DgBoHS2UYPTQtnza77HBM9LlvOKzq0X9/xqJBn1jFOK CJ+BPNh6HbAN3plwd0Oj2QgBvzR0K6yYmsVAhIliDv6KBhLfWA6Rakj4NqSoO3n3 e3zd3v2PR7WGXS0wGmSlCx48ORiSTxuIRY4Y3dZPV0qaxoQ5KuJDw8ASuPmj2YGz zwSYrFTSbMVuIRB+pXtKRpxu2UjgKS/a0I074WM2ObMoNo00L5o3CWMBbQdllouL AHdASNbGIm7XWN9SI2lcvOIIKAizoELxnzvB9eETsrzUk5n7YYBeM6yyXeZcpZ6q hXPSRPyh9vae5rV5hbNs1ReBG+Dr73YtMFcUBUqbcyCHWFxe3O5CFjlPaKdwiQ1X eIeK+7p4YmCJJJAQy6Qq0RqUuNVPZn6EXUgbuizDRZgny7ssOHya8dQHfLU6+wP6 PcLvTh8ix1bTNKPXye/bzMBc0NrJDVwoa2RQqZBehnSZpTfpu/eHQaIFHJaBxDRl QQgKCwEkRvcmJsJTrGcrPI6G9h4a74kl7sKmGkhq6rq7qAz1zpm5tsPJ16s4RRwR GcBF/qLc6iUBntQmAtM9 =JXfU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
